Absent Fathers

Reward

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed. What I'm asking is:

Can you see any disadvantages with the lc4m approach? I don't think it's an unfair question as with any alternatives to the current status quo, it has inherent drawbacks. I'm just wondering what they are as compared to the current deficiencies?

Not really, except for women that would be reluctant to share the rights but that would be gotten used to fairly quickly, one generation and it would be normal. If men, children and society can cope with the one sided situation thats open to abuse now, women can cope with an egalitarian approach thats less open to abuse in the future. This might be better on another thread unless you are asking questions about lc4m that relate specifically to absent fathers.

Reward

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok. Its clear now. You do support men abandoning their kids. Probably better on another thread because that is more a mans right issue.

Thats like saying being pro choice for women is supporting murdering kids, go away now please with your fallacies and hyperbole.

metrovelvet

Reward wrote: »

Thats like saying being pro choice for women is supporting murdering kids, go away now please with your fallacies and hyperbole.

No it isnt. You just don't want to come out and say it.

Reward

metrovelvet wrote: »

No it isnt. You just don't want to come out and say it.

Its exactly the same sort of stupid and hysterical claim, if lc4m is used, its used early in the pregnancy and if its a genuine accident, there shouldn't be any problems. There are no children involved at all. Now just let it go, I didn't want to start a discussion in LC4M, start a thread on it if you want.

Fittle

Blisterman wrote: »

I've looked, but I can't find specific figures for the number of men who choose not to have anything to do with their kids.

It would be hard to get an accurate figure, as I'd imagine many wouldn't admit to it.

Why don't you do a poll on boards - it would be a start.

I would tick the box 'Has a child who's father has nothing to do with him, no matter how hard I tried to involve him'.

I agree that many wouldn't admit to it. Well, they would admit that they don't see their children, but they would no doubt, blame the psychopathic mother and the fact that they found it very difficult to deal with her as their excuse:rolleyes: Funny how these women showed no signs of mental illness before they got pregnant:rolleyes:

CDfm

Blisterman wrote: »

I've looked, but I can't find specific figures for the number of men who choose not to have anything to do with their kids.

It would be hard to get an accurate figure, as I'd imagine many wouldn't admit to it.

From memory the academics who do studies on this for Ireland is Harry Ferguson of the University of Bristol and Kieron McKeown -they co-authored a book Changing Fathers.

The good news is that the TCD study suggests that Irish men are European champions at playing with our children!

http://www.independent.ie/unsorted/features/man-united-in-the-love-of-their-children-501804.html

The reason why Dads should be involved with their children is that its good for children.

Fittle

CDfm wrote: »

The reason why Dads should be involved with their children is that its good for children.

But would you say that is the case for ALL children CD? I agree that it may have been the case for my own child, but what about children where the fathers are obviously addicts/criminals/abusers etc? Is some contact with these fathers, better than none?

sam34

as per previous mod instructions, metrovelvet and reward banned for personal digs, sniping, uncivil posting etc.

there will be zero tolerance to that type of crap here.

please remain on-topic and civil.

also, to the poster who reported a post last night with the words "where are the mods?", i have some news for you: mods are volunteers on this site. we have lives which entail jobs, families and other commitments. we do not monitor the site 24/7 so that you dont get upset by someone else's post.


lastly, to the poster who reported a post claiming "this wouldnt be tolerated in the ladies lounge", here is some news for you: we are not a male equivalent of TLL. the fora are separate fora, with different charters and mods. telling us something would not be tolerated there is about as relevant as telling us it would not be tolerated in AH, or the weather forum or the celebrity&showbiz forum, ie it's of no relevance

CDfm

Fittle wrote: »

But would you say that is the case for ALL children CD? I agree that it may have been the case for my own child, but what about children where the fathers are obviously addicts/criminals/abusers etc? Is some contact with these fathers, better than none?

I don't know the answer to that Fittle but I do know that it is just as likely that mothers can be addicts , criminals and abusers.

I know I have made a huge difference in my childrens lives.

he increase in absent fathers is challenging society 0

June 29th, 2010 by Sheila Tony Humphreys the renowned clinical psychologist is on record as saying ‘Every large scale long term study of families life shows the absence of fathers is the biggest challenge facing Western society today, as it’s the biggest single contributor to all troubling behaviour shown in children. 30% of all fathers have no involvement post separation and 30% of single mothers have no paternal follow through. Fathers are absent for many reasons, whether it’s an unplanned pregnancy, separation or divorce, second families, workaholic or through death.


My father died when I was five years old and I remember a sense of abandonment as I grew up. To a young girl, when the most important man in your life abandons or neglects you, it’s hard to trust or believe that another man will do different.


http://www.practicalparenting.ie/article/the-increase-in-absent-fathers-is-challenging-society/

Do I believe that the 30% of all Dads who loose contact are bad people , of course not.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

Can you see any disadvantages with the lc4m approach? I don't think it's an unfair question as with any alternatives to the current status quo, it has inherent drawbacks. I'm just wondering what they are as compared to the current deficiencies?

You're going to have disadvantages no matter what approach you adopt, but that is hardly the issue.

The problem in my mind is that the question of reproductive rights has evolved in modern society to the point that it is completely skewed in favour of women. Even after birth, women have a de facto 'get out' option with adoption, so ultimately it's not even about a "woman's right to her body" because the issue is one of what happens after the child has left the body, by definition.

This is where the "won't someone think of the children" card finally gets played - which is debatable, because there are plenty of situation where a child is actually better off being adopted, or (God forbid) go to the father. Indeed, the "won't someone think of the children" card is played if the woman has chosen to keep the child. If not, as with the abortion option, we revert to women's rights trumping every one else's.

It's pretty difficult to ignore the fact that there is a complete bias towards women in this area, to the point of monopoly, with the child actually coming far down the pecking order (and most of those rights are in reality exercised by the woman by proxy). Meanwhile the man does not register on the rights scale at all.

Now, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this level of inequity is simply unjust and ultimately untenable. The answer to this may or may not be some form of LC4M. It also may be instead a removal or sharing with men of some of the rights that women presently have. Whatever the solution, it will have drawbacks for one or more concerned, but at present it appears that the vast bulk of the drawbacks are being paid for by men and that will not continue indefinitely.

Blisterman wrote: »

I've looked, but I can't find specific figures for the number of men who choose not to have anything to do with their kids.

It would be hard to get an accurate figure, as I'd imagine many wouldn't admit to it.

I think this is a very difficult thing to gauge. Consider three different men:

• John had a one-night-stand that resulted in the woman getting pregnant. She chose to keep the child, but John has no interest or wish to be involved in the child's life from day one.
• Bill broke up with his girlfriend when she was pregnant. He wasn't involved in the first ten years of the child's life, then became involved for about three years. Then he got a job abroad and dropped contact.
• David broke up with his girlfriend when the child was six months old. She resented him for the breakup and thus obstructed him at every turn where it came to being involved in the child's life. After numerous expensive court cases, that resulted in court orders that could never be enforced a combination of the cost, stress and hopelessness of the situation caused him to give up and get on with his life as best he could.

All three men could be defined as having chosen not to have anything to do with their kids, however they're hardly the same. John is probably the only clear cut case, while David is a little bit more difficult to define, simply because there appears to have been little concrete decision or if there was, not a lot of effort behind it. As for David, can he truly be accused of the same given such a Hob's son choice? You could probably bet that his ex will tell it that way though.

donfers

Fistycuffs wrote: »

Where has anyone done this ? There has been no male bashing in this thread what so ever , quiet the opposite infact. Anyone who has mentioned personal experience,myself included, has qualified their input by adding that they are aware that their experience is one of a minority and acknowledging that the majority of men are loving fathers. No one has suggested that abandonment is the only reason a father might be absent.However children who are abandoned by a father are still a minority who are large enough to deserve a voice and deserve to have their experience at least acknowledged. Their experience will go on to have wider implications for society too. It benefits everyone to at least look honestly at the situation.

Abandonment is a complex issue. Honest discussion of it doesn't mean it has to be a ""heh,who do those nasty evil men think they are" conversation. You are being both naive and very demeaning of others to think that, particularly to those who have experienced it who are keenly aware of just how complex it is.

Personally I think a lot of factors might play into why some men willing abandon their children, from the way they have been parented themselves to how societal expectation might not as strongly encourage an emotional bond between father and child as they do between mother and child. I'm not talking about legal or human rights here. Just that basic emotion led desire to be with your child that's expected of a mother and has been throughout the ages.
And yes I know what sensitive types you are so just to underline again, I do not believe the above applies to all men. Lots of men have experienced parenting that has impressed the importance of fathering upon them and most men bond with their children.

Do you all believe that society places equal expectations upon a father in terms of caring or in terms of emotional bonding with a child as it does on a mother? In the last 100 years the role of a man , a father, has changed quite dramatically . The role has changed from one of seeing strength and manliness demonstrated through being stoic and unemotional , where the main value in the family was as head of a patriarchy and as a disciplinarian. Now many different demands are placed on a father. He is looked to to provide a lot of the same things that were once the sole preserve of a mother such as nurturing and gently counselling a child through troubles. Men are certainly capable of this but are the taught these skills or does societal expectation impress them upon boys throughout their lives in the same way the are impressed on girls ? The truth is most don't. I think that is why less social stigma is attached to being a father who abandons a child than there is to a mother who does so. I think it also might account to some degree to why SOME men don't sense that deep bond with a child. Their lives aren't seen from day to one to be leading up to that point of having their newborn baby placed in their arms where as for most women theirs have been whether they are conscious of it or not. They've been mimicing that very moment since they were able to hold a doll.
And again for all the pedants reading...I'm not saying all mothers are great or up to the task or that all fathers miss that connection between love and being parent.

To presume this is a men vs women issue is to be so sadly mired in female bashing that you can no longer see a frank conversation for what it is anymore. It is very sad to read so many posts who believe the majority of this issue comes down to apportioning blame to one sex or the other (almost 100% of that blame being attributed to women in this thread). It can be a bigger issue, one that perhaps there might be an answer to ,and that would serve all parties. Whether that is intervening in situations where a child is being poorly parented so he/she doesn't go on to be a poor parent or live with a sense of detachment from parental responsibilty as an adult or maybe greater social education in young boys about being a father in the future I don't know. But it could be an interesting valuable conversation.

strawperson argument in that post i'm afraid

my post that you seem so upset about never apportioned any blame, all I suggested was that some people use the absentee father issue as an excuse to bash men, and to be fair, fathers who walk out on their kids just coz they can't be arsed and it's an inconvenience deserve to be bashed (which you claim is the case for your situation).............however the bone of contention in this thread is the implication that all absentee dads are deadbeats which of course is a fallacy, so rightfully since the initial few generalising posts most people have qualified their statements and added the caveat that not all absentee dads are deadbeats.......the new bone of contention seems to centre around what number of those absentee dads are deadbeats......some think the figure is quite significant, others do not and while acknowledging that some dads are deadbeats instead point to a myriad of factors that might lead to a walkout, it's worth noting though that many of the people who seem to be suggesting deadbeatdaddery is more prevalent have experienced it personally which doesn't count for much in the grand scheme of things (at a statistical level at least)

I particularly like being preached to by you about how complex the issue is when I made that exact point in my post

Oh and I also love how you say what sensitive types we all are and then say that to discuss this from a men vs women issue "is to be so sadly mired in female bashing"........so the men are the sensitive ones yet to even bring up the gender issue here means one is automatically engaging in female bashing, a truly mindboggling analysis

other than that though i'd agree with a lot of your post

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're going to have disadvantages no matter what approach you adopt, but that is hardly the issue.

The problem in my mind is that the question of reproductive rights has evolved in modern society to the point that it is completely skewed in favour of women. Even after birth, women have a de facto 'get out' option with adoption, so ultimately it's not even about a "woman's right to her body" because the issue is one of what happens after the child has left the body, by definition.

This is where the "won't someone think of the children" card finally gets played - which is debatable, because there are plenty of situation where a child is actually better off being adopted, or (God forbid) go to the father. Indeed, the "won't someone think of the children" card is played if the woman has chosen to keep the child. If not, as with the abortion option, we revert to women's rights trumping every one else's.

It's pretty difficult to ignore the fact that there is a complete bias towards women in this area, to the point of monopoly, with the child actually coming far down the pecking order (and most of those rights are in reality exercised by the woman by proxy). Meanwhile the man does not register on the rights scale at all.

Now, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this level of inequity is simply unjust and ultimately untenable. The answer to this may or may not be some form of LC4M. It also may be instead a removal or sharing with men of some of the rights that women presently have. Whatever the solution, it will have drawbacks for one or more concerned, but at present it appears that the vast bulk of the drawbacks are being paid for by men and that will not continue indefinitely.

It also doesn't take a genius to figure out that the main reason women have these rights is that they can get pregnant, which is why the options of abortion, adoption or keeping the child are there.

With adoption, I'd agree that the father should definitely be considered as an alternative if that is viable and realistic but as you say, that is different as the child has left the woman's body, by definition.

The problem is when the child is inside the woman's body and whether it is practical to have a 50/50 type decision on what happens to the baby. Is it practical that just like LC4M, can a father override the wishes of the mother, but in this case insist on the mother carrying the child to full term and becoming a single parent himself? I don't think it is.

As for LC4M, it really does come down to the "wont somebody think of the children argument". The father has voluntarily had sex with the woman knowing the consequences. Just taking the financial issue alone, who would bring up the child with the large financial outlays needed? The mother on her own?

ATM, some men do walk away and pay very little, making it very difficult for the mother financially or often the state subsidises the cost to an extent. Whether we like it or not, somebody has to think of the consequences here and they do affect the child, emotionally and financially.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

It also doesn't take a genius to figure out that the main reason women have these rights is that they can get pregnant, which is why the options of abortion, adoption or keeping the child are there.

Where a woman wants to terminate and the man does not you have a point. However, in the reverse case your point fails as it is no longer a question of a woman's body, but what happens after. Indeed, the only choice that is should be influenced by a woman's right to her own body is the question of whether to go to term or not - adoption and keeping the child have nothing to do with her body.

With adoption, I'd agree that the father should definitely be considered as an alternative if that is viable and realistic but as you say, that is different as the child has left the woman's body, by definition.

Unfortunately I could see objections raised against such a move; if a woman does not want to keep the child, she may well choose abortion over adoption to avoid a scenario where the father steps in and she finds herself paying maintenance to him. Detractors would point to such a condition leading to more abortions.

The problem is when the child is inside the woman's body and whether it is practical to have a 50/50 type decision on what happens to the baby. Is it practical that just like LC4M, can a father override the wishes of the mother, but in this case insist on the mother carrying the child to full term and becoming a single parent himself? I don't think it is.

I think there are serious issues with that, as you say yourself. However, my point was not to argue for this or LC4M, but to raise awareness that these issues only seem to matter when they affect women - that these choices affect men does not seem to bother anyone.

To put it another way; you say that it is wrong for a man to force a woman to go to term - this leads to a man paying for the rights of the mother with his (lack of) rights. Then if she chooses to keep the child against his wishes then again this leads to a man paying for the rights of the mother to make this choice.

As for LC4M, it really does come down to the "wont somebody think of the children argument". The father has voluntarily had sex with the woman knowing the consequences. Just taking the financial issue alone, who would bring up the child with the large financial outlays needed? The mother on her own?

Does she not also have a responsibility for her own choices also? What you are instead saying is that the man has voluntarily had sex with the woman and he is held accountable, but the woman should not be if she chooses not to be and if she does, she gets to share the accountability with those around her. You can't really have it both ways.

ATM, some men do walk away and pay very little, making it very difficult for the mother financially or often the state subsidises the cost to an extent. Whether we like it or not, somebody has to think of the consequences here and they do affect the child, emotionally and financially.

Unless you fall into a pretty anti-social demographic and/or the mother has no interest in perusing you, you will be paying a lot more than 'very little', and that's before one considers secondary effects and costs.

And while somebody has to think of the consequences, but seemingly only so long as a woman's rights are not infringed, apparently. If she chooses to abort, then it's suddenly a ball of cells and only becomes a child if she chooses not to abort. Even then, she may put the child up for adoption and avoid parental responsibility that way. Or she may keep the child - and I mean keep, because she will have custody automatically, even if it is not in that child's best interests. So I really don't buy this "think of the child" line.

No matter what model is used there will be costs and consequences and damage. However, what we have now is a model that seems to minimize those costs and consequences and damage for only one of the parties involved, and leaves the others to pay for their choices.

I'm not going to argue in favour or against LC4M, or any other measure. However, this cake and eat it situation really cannot continue so something really needs to be done to correct this gross inequity.

liah

Corinthian, in fairness, until men somehow develop the capability to get pregnant there is always going to have to be some degree of inequity as this is probably literally the only thing that we cannot change the inequity of.

Do you have a suggestion to compensate for this unalterable inequity? Because forcing a woman to term so a man can have his child is out of the question, imho, and because of that it just simply can't be equal as there's a variety of issues that arise from trying to balance it.

The Corinthian

liah wrote: »

Corinthian, in fairness, until men somehow develop the capability to get pregnant there is always going to have to be some degree of inequity as this is probably literally the only thing that we cannot change the inequity of.

Of course you will, but how does a woman's ability to carry a fetus to term give her a sole right to decide to keep or not keep it after it is born?

Do you have a suggestion to compensate for this unalterable inequity? Because forcing a woman to term so a man can have his child is out of the question, imho, and because of that it just simply can't be equal as there's a variety of issues that arise from trying to balance it.

I never said the inequality was unalterable, I said it was untenable.

I don't want to present a model to even things out, because it is a complex series of issues and consequences. However, I do feel that you can't give one gender an 'out' from parental responsibility, especially after birth, and not give the other gender the same option. Or you cannot deny one gender that option and then give it to the other.

What is more important to you? Your right to choose to avoid parental responsibility or embrace it - you can't have both and expect men to pay for your freedom of choice.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

To put it another way; you say that it is wrong for a man to force a woman to go to term - this leads to a man paying for the rights of the mother with his (lack of) rights. Then if she chooses to keep the child against his wishes then again this leads to a man paying for the rights of the mother to make this choice.

I definitely don't think it is wrong. I'd be all for it but again it comes back to practical concerns and how realistic is it. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option if it meant only the odd case occurred, would be worth it to me.

As for the rest, as you say yourself, there are issues and disadvantages with it. I think we've been down this debate before and I do take your idea on board, I have sympathy for it from an egalitarian point of view, I just don't see how practical or desirable socially it is.

The last bit of your post summed it up for me:

The Corinthian wrote:

However, this cake and eat it situation really cannot continue so something really needs to be done to correct this gross inequity.

As you say yourself, woman do have a cake and eat it type scenario, which makes me wonder why men would want an equal slice of the cake too! By the way you posted that, it sounds like you find it a bit distasteful too so why would you want the same?

It always sounds exactly like men just wanting equality for the sake of it, just because women have extra rights in this case thus men have to have the same rights too, regardless if it is having our cake and eating it!

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

I definitely don't think it is wrong. I'd be all for it but again it comes back to practical concerns and how realistic is it. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option if it meant only the odd case occurred, would be worth it to me.

Well, I misunderstood you, but that's a fair answer.

As for the rest, as you say yourself, there are issues and disadvantages with it. I think we've been down this debate before and I do take your idea on board, I have sympathy for it from an egalitarian point of view, I just don't see how practical or desirable socially it is.

That's easy to say if you're not footing the bill of your desirable society with your rights. As I said on the onset, of course there will be consequences, but if equality is less important than those consequences to society, then there is a good case to return to the traditional family model and force women to quit their jobs the moment they marry.

It always sounds exactly like men just wanting equality for the sake of it, just because women have extra rights in this case thus men have to have the same rights too, regardless if it is having our cake and eating it!

Bit of a silly observation, TBH. I take it women wanted the vote for the sake of it too then?

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, I misunderstood you, but that's a fair answer.

That's easy to say if you're not footing the bill of your desirable society with your rights. As I said on the onset, of course there will be consequences, but if equality is less important than those consequences to society, then there is a good case to return to the traditional family model and force women to quit their jobs the moment they marry.

Bit of a silly observation, TBH. I take it women wanted the vote for the sake of it too then?

Bit of a silly comparison in fairness, the vote and men abdicating parental responsibility and also extrapolating the lack of equality to women having to leave the workplace when they marry!

AnnyHallsal

I've never heard of LC4M - does it mean a man can renounce his child and therefore not pay paternity?

CDfm

Here are copies of Reports prepared by Kieron McKeown for Government Departments and they cover the whole gamut of available material.

I have picked out some points that jumped out at me and give a flavour of the content for those who need to dig further.

http://www.amen.ie/Downloads/26017.pdf

http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/3723/1/DOHC_Fathers_and_families.pdf

In 1966, the Supreme Court clarified the following aspects of the Irish
Constitution: (i) a natural or biological father is not a member of a family
within Article 41; (ii) a natural or biological father is not a parent within
Article 42; and (iii) a natural or biological father has no personal right in
relation to his child which the State is bound to protect under Article 40.3
(The State (Nicolaou) v an Bord Uchtála).

20% of children of unmarried fathers whose mothers are on One Parent Benefit may not know who there father is.

The exact number of children whose right to know their father is not being
vindicated in this regard is difficult to estimate but in 1998 the Department
of Social, Community and Family Affairs surveyed a sample of 1,000
unmarried applicants for One-Parent Family Payment and found that 79%
of them had both parents names on each child’s birth certificate. In other
words, about 20% of the children of unmarried fathers – equivalent to
around 3,000 children per annum- may never know or be able to find out
– who their natural father is69.

The mothers attitude to the fathers involvement is very important.When mothers are motivated it works.

The importance of relationship with the mother also emerged in the Dublin
study of non-marital births which found that the mother’s attitude to
parenting was improved by contact with the non-resident father88. Staff in
Treoir, the Federation of Services for Unmarried Parents are also of the view,
based on their contacts with single fathers and mothers, that mothers are
effectively the gatekeepers to contact between non-resident fathers and their
children and access can be undermined or denied in three ways89: (1)where
the child is given no information about the father and his name may not
even by registered on his birth certificate (2) where the child is given only
negative information about the father and (3) where access is denied or
severely limited if the relationship with the mother breaks down or the
mother enters a new relationship.

Social class & employment status have an affect on maintenence and the ability to pay. I often think when I see posts on the issue -how will a single guy on single benefit afford overnight access if he is paying maintenence.

fathers who were unemployed were 20 times less likely to pay
maintenance than employed fathers95. The same result has also been
replicated in a number of US studies96. The British study also found that
younger fathers who had lost contact with the mother were less likely to pay
although this finding is not replicated in US studies97. These findings suggest
that, at least for low income non-resident fathers, measures to improve their
employment and earnings, in conjunction with measures to improve family
relationships, may have a more beneficial impact on the payment of
maintenance than stricter enforcement.

Professionals , such as social services, "filter out fathers" and do not encourage fathers

The predominant focus of services for families is on mothers rather than
fathers; as one reviewer put it, family support is characterised by “the
predominant focus on mothers and the apparent invisibility of fathers”115.
There is a good deal of research and practice to suggest that fathers tend to
be avoided by professionals – and possibly vice versa – and there is great
uncertainty among professionals about how to approach fathers and work
with them116. In social work as in family support, parenting is often treated
as synonymous with mothering and tends to “filter out fathers”117. The
reality, as many commentators have noted, is that there are virtually no
strategies and interventions to involve and support fathers118.

I'd go further and say that ideologically most professionals I deal with were anti-father.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

Bit of a silly comparison in fairness, the vote and men abdicating parental responsibility and also extrapolating the lack of equality to women having to leave the workplace when they marry!

Not really. To begin with you accuse men of wanting some semblence of equal say in becoming or not becoming parents (for the rest of their lives) as something that they want "for the sake of it", which is frankly as ridiculous as suggesting that women wanted equal say in democracy (the vote) just for the sake of it too.

You've also argued that equality should be sacrificed for the good of society. If that is the case, then there is probably more than enough evidence (such as the contents of the first post) that would indicate that the traditional family model was a far better one for society; and that would likely mean no divorce, wife at home and hubby putting food on the table.

Are you willing to sacrifice the last century of women's rights for the good of society now? If not, we return to my observation that it seems all right to sacrifice equality as long as you're not footing the bill.

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

I've never heard of LC4M - does it mean a man can renounce his child and therefore not pay paternity?

I presume so; probably stands for [something] Choice For Men.

I think the idea, as it has been proposed would mean that men could abdicate from being fathers as long as it was early in the pregnancy and would then be treated in the same way as if they had put the child up for adoption and irreversible. They would still be required to pay something, like a lump sum or fixed maintenance for the first few years, but it would be a fraction of what it would otherwise be.

Please note that I'm not actually arguing either in favour or against this, only that it would be one option (or one part of an option) for redressing the imbalance in rights that presently exists.

AnnyHallsal

Thanks Corinthian. And excellent post CDFM.

I don't think women should be allowed to abuse their position as gatekeepers. And I guess opting out of a child's life should be a legal option available to men. I would fear that the father would change his mind later and may have sundered the relationship irrevocably.

If I found out I was pregnant I would hope I would take the father's feelings into serious consideration. I doubt anyone could force me to have an abortion or keep the child if I was strongly opposed to it. If the father felt strongly to the contrary I would hope I would respect his decision to opt out. I say hope because I'm not going to presume what I would do in such complex circumstances.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not really. To begin with you accuse men of wanting some semblence of equal say in becoming or not becoming parents (for the rest of their lives) as something that they want "for the sake of it", which is frankly as ridiculous as suggesting that women wanted equal say in democracy (the vote) just for the sake of it too.

You've also argued that equality should be sacrificed for the good of society. If that is the case, then there is probably more than enough evidence (such as the contents of the first post) that would indicate that the traditional family model was a far better one for society; and that would likely mean no divorce, wife at home and hubby putting food on the table.

Are you willing to sacrifice the last century of women's rights for the good of society now? If not, we return to my observation that it seems all right to sacrifice equality as long as you're not footing the bill.

Not really. I just commented on how you describe the current options women have as having their cake and eating it, which isn't usually a positive description of a scenario. You also want men to be have their slice too, seemingly to me, just because women have those rights and damn the consequences.

Basically it seems like you want to swap the current problems with another set, which is fine because it gives men equality, there doesn't seem to be any other concern, definitely not the child anyway.

The big problem as I see it with walking away for men is, the child exists! If a woman aborts there is no child or in adoption, the mother has no right to go back on the agreement until much later, the child to all intents and purposes doesn't exist anymore. Contrast that to a man walking away.

You might call that " wont somebody think of the children" emotional appeals, but it is a real scenario that has consequences for the child.

I don't see what the OTT comparison to women tied to the kitchen accomplishes either! We are talking about men walking away from their offspring here, not giving women the vote or equal pay! You've taken a viewpoint here and extrapolated it to extreme lengths.

AnnyHallsal

K-9 wrote: »

The big problem as I see it with walking away for men is, the child exists! If a woman aborts there is no child or in adoption, the mother has no right to go back on the agreement until much later, the child to all intents and purposes doesn't exist anymore. Contrast that to a man walking away.

Don't some men who walk away act as if the child doesn't exist? The question is should this be legally endorsed. To my mind, a good man will want to know his child even if he would have made another decision if the choice had been his alone. And a good woman would support a father's desire to see his children. Individual circumstances are regrettably less clear.

Cavehill Red

This thread has become a circlejerk for fatherbashing.

The OP was demonstrably fraudulent, in that it claimed a quarter of UK dads had willingly abandoned their kids which is an utter barefaced lie.

No one has or can demonstrate that there is any significant amount of willingly neglectful fathers. Rather, the 25% figure (itself a cherrypicking of a specific narrow age group) is the result of many factors, most of which were delineated in the first few pages of this thread, the primary one being the family law system and its prioritising of mothers rights over those of children or fathers.

Since then, this has become a debate about a phenomenon that no one can prove exists in any significant amount, and as a result has attracted many manhating, fatherbashing posts.

I left a challenge on this thread many pages ago which has depressingly but predictably gone unanswered.

Where are the women who support the introduction of genuine equitable parenting in Ireland?

Once again, I'm led to the sorry conclusion that women clamouring for equality prefer to ignore areas of inequity which do not affect them, in this case at the expense of the fundamental human rights of children.

Now, back to the fatherbashing, y'all. I'm out.

K-9

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Don't some men who walk away act as if the child doesn't exist? The question is should this be legally endorsed. To my mind, a good man will want to know his child even if he would have made another decision if the choice had been his alone. And a good woman would support a father's desire to see his children. Individual circumstances are regrettably less clear.

I suppose the question is, do we legalise and make that acceptable constitutionally?

Which given we have very limited abortion in this country, the same equality doesn't really exist in Ireland for women either! Abortion would need to be legalised on a similar level first probably for men to get their similar option.

Iago

K-9 wrote: »

Not really. I just commented on how you describe the current options women have as having their cake and eating it, which isn't usually a positive description of a scenario. You also want men to be have their slice too, seemingly to me, just because women have those rights and damn the consequences.

Basically it seems like you want to swap the current problems with another set, which is fine because it gives men equality, there doesn't seem to be any other concern, definitely not the child anyway.

The big problem as I see it with walking away for men is, the child exists! If a woman aborts there is no child or in adoption, the mother has no right to go back on the agreement until much later, the child to all intents and purposes doesn't exist anymore. Contrast that to a man walking away.

You might call that " wont somebody think of the children" emotional appeals, but it is a real scenario that has consequences for the child.

I don't see what the OTT comparison to women tied to the kitchen accomplishes either! We are talking about men walking away from their offspring here, not giving women the vote or equal pay! You've taken a viewpoint here and extrapolated it to extreme lengths.

You're missing the point completely I think, whether that's intentional or not I don't know.

Having a child is life changing decision, and it's something that will impact on every area of your life for as long as you live. It will dictate your future relationships, your job prospects, your ability to relocate, your financial security and options and everything else you can think of.

The point being made is that a woman can evaluate all of that and say "I'm not ready for what that means for me" and abort or give a child up for adoption.

A man can evaluate all of that and say "I'm not ready for what that means for me" and....tough.

Here's the question

"Of those men that didn't walk away from their offspring, how many would have chosen to abort or put up for adoption if given a choice, and would men having that choice be better or worse for society as a whole?"

K-9

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This thread has become a circlejerk for fatherbashing.

The OP was demonstrably fraudulent, in that it claimed a quarter of UK dads had willingly abandoned their kids which is an utter barefaced lie.

No one has or can demonstrate that there is any significant amount of willingly neglectful fathers. Rather, the 25% figure (itself a cherrypicking of a specific narrow age group) is the result of many factors, most of which were delineated in the first few pages of this thread, the primary one being the family law system and its prioritising of mothers rights over those of children or fathers.

Since then, this has become a debate about a phenomenon that no one can prove exists in any significant amount, and as a result has attracted many manhating, fatherbashing posts.

I left a challenge on this thread many pages ago which has depressingly but predictably gone unanswered.

Where are the women who support the introduction of genuine equitable parenting in Ireland?

Once again, I'm led to the sorry conclusion that women clamouring for equality prefer to ignore areas of inequity which do not affect them, in this case at the expense of the fundamental human rights of children.

Now, back to the fatherbashing, y'all. I'm out.

I don't think we can say it is less than 25% nor indeed more. Both names on the birth cert doesn't mean the Dad is involved nor indeed does it necessarily follow that the Dad isn't involved if his name isn't on the cert, which has been known to happen. The mother will not put the name on the cert but the Dad is still involved. It may take a court order for him to get his details added.

K-9

Iago wrote: »

You're missing the point completely I think, whether that's intentional or not I don't know.

Having a child is life changing decision, and it's something that will impact on every area of your life for as long as you live. It will dictate your future relationships, your job prospects, your ability to relocate, your financial security and options and everything else you can think of.

The point being made is that a woman can evaluate all of that and say "I'm not ready for what that means for me" and abort or give a child up for adoption.

A man can evaluate all of that and say "I'm not ready for what that means for me" and....tough.

Here's the question

"Of those men that didn't walk away from their offspring, how many would have chosen to abort or put up for adoption if given a choice, and would men having that choice be better or worse for society as a whole?"

I'm not missing that at all.

What others are missing is the one massive difference in the two scenarios, the child exists in one case, not in the other.

It's a rather important distinction and characteristic I would have thought or do we just ignore that to have equality for men?

That is why I think it isn't better for society as a whole to have that option as children are part of it and more important in many ways, as they are our future society too.

AnnyHallsal

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This thread has become a circlejerk for fatherbashing.

The OP was demonstrably fraudulent, in that it claimed a quarter of UK dads had willingly abandoned their kids which is an utter barefaced lie.

No one has or can demonstrate that there is any significant amount of willingly neglectful fathers. Rather, the 25% figure (itself a cherrypicking of a specific narrow age group) is the result of many factors, most of which were delineated in the first few pages of this thread, the primary one being the family law system and its prioritising of mothers rights over those of children or fathers.

Since then, this has become a debate about a phenomenon that no one can prove exists in any significant amount, and as a result has attracted many manhating, fatherbashing posts.

I left a challenge on this thread many pages ago which has depressingly but predictably gone unanswered.

Where are the women who support the introduction of genuine equitable parenting in Ireland?

Once again, I'm led to the sorry conclusion that women clamouring for equality prefer to ignore areas of inequity which do not affect them, in this case at the expense of the fundamental human rights of children.

Now, back to the fatherbashing, y'all. I'm out.

So you are arguing there are no neglectful fathers? It's a myth, a fabrication. Or so few that they are statistically irrelevant? This thread is about fathers who choose to leave, as the OP stressed repeatedly - are we not entitled to discuss such circumstances, rare as they may be?

I don't know what you mean by 'genuine equitable parenting' but I resent your accusation of fatherbashing and callous indifference to inequality. What I've seen since the intervention of the mods is a rational discussion that does not deserve this kind of outraged response at all. Engaging with, rather than insulting, your fellow posters would be more productive.